Like I'm really gonna donate to this place when my (completely constructive) page edits get reverted in 10 minutes...

Like I'm really gonna donate to this place when my (completely constructive) page edits get reverted in 10 minutes. Yeah, fuck that shit.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_triangle_(mathematics)&action=history
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prime number
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_for_bestiality
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>why do they revert muh joo conspiracies

I haven't tried to edit a wiki page for years, seriously nearly a decade. Are they still this bad? From what I remember all the mods basically act like they're the only ones allowed to edit anything, unless you argue the shit out of it on the talk page for days until they get bored.

I won't deny it's one of the best websites in the history of the internet, but fuck me the culture is beyond toxic.

I expanded some of the pages on US history and this kept happening every time. I'm convinced by now that this Hmains thing isn't a person, it's a bot that automatically reverts pages and always posts the exact same message about unsourced/unhelpful edits.

Wikipedia editor detected.

Wikipedia horror stories?

>back in 2009
>edit some pages on the Civil War
>guy keeps reverting them because unsourced and historical fiction (whatever that means)
>2012, three years later
>I go and edit the page on the Battle of Antietam and...surprise, the exact same guy reverts it

I'm not making this up. All that time and the same douche was _still_ patrolling that stupid page.

>Are they still this bad?
Mmmm hmmm.

>edit page on 2008 election
>since I want to be encyclopedic and fair, I include criticisms of both Obama and McCain
>go back a week later
>my edits weren't reverted, but all the negative stuff about Obama was removed while all the stuff about McCain was left untouched

...

Still haven't seen this.

I remember /m/ used to have edit wars with an autist called Ryulong. Even after he was banned (because of Gamergate edit war), he still had his cronies revert everyone's edits on Kamen Rider and Toku articles.

The thing with wikipedia isn't "SJWism", but rather that admins are a cabal, and they decide what goes in what doesn't. Also they all have "pet pages" that they never let anyone edit. Wikipedia has less and less editors every year because the people higher ups keep shooing everyone away.

I edited some pages on the space program, and I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to add to the Apollo 13 page because it was a little skimpy, but oh wait, I can't...it's permalocked because of vandalism.

>Cabal

Shush goyim there is no such thing.

I've fixed pages with obvious mistakes on them and gotten the thing reverted for being unsourced.

Yeah I'm not kidding. They'd rather have a page with blatant factual errors than it not have a source in there.

>Wikipedia
>facts
TOP FUCKING KEK

On the other hand, I put in a bunch of added detail about the Challenger Disaster and they're all still there.

>conspiracies

Did you really expect more from SJWikipedia?

I've made a few edits to pages about bands, included a source and they're still there.

It sounds like you guys need to include your sources.

>bands
Nobody cares about bands, non-mainstream celebrities and 2nd-3rd world politicians.
You could write that they have 3 penises and nobody will ask for a source, unless it gets noticed by the media and it gets announced as a fact.

It doesn't change the fact that literally all these posts have not mentioned adding a source but did mention they got reverted for unsourced material

Why didn't you reference your shit then?

You think this is autistic? Try backing up shit in front of a court. Got way easier for me when I started suing companies to force them to prove their innocence in a way that helps me

>Host a subtle fake article at some website regarding some fella
>Edit wikipedia article providing my own website as source
>Edit stays
>Years later be watching the news while having lunch
>A scandal pops out and my fake edits are used as source by the media

Since Hmains is probably a bot, I would most likely get my edits reverted regardless.

>less and less editors every year

[citation needed]

What criticisms do you mean?

Even if they did have sources, if it's in someone's pet-project domain, you can't change them or even make them objective. Like mentioned.

links or gtfo

Sure. Bot users do run on wikipedia. What if they made a bot that checks your text for superscript [numbers] and kills your edit if there are none?

Sounds like an easily doable project, even though it feels like a souless bureaucracy that rejects a document because the handwriting is a little too bold in one spot.

I've added info on some poisons to wikidata, sourced them, AND added info about the sources themselves, the original research papers providing the figures. Pretty sure they're still there.

You know...I mentioned how Obama was accused of being too inexperienced, having ties to leftist radicals, Reverend Wright, etc. And to be objective, I noted how they said McCain was too old and a lot of people didn't like Sarah Palin.

So like I said, all the stuff about Obama was removed but the stuff about McCain and Palin weren't. I also had a remark in there about Palin being royally shit on by the liberal media that was taken out.

They're never seeing another dime from me after how they handled GamerGate.

The entire "high level" edit staff there are mentally ill gender studies graduates who serve as the SJW politburo.

Wikipedia has drifted too far from its purpose. It's trying to live up to its "authoritative" reputation and become way too bureaucratic, which is just completely misguided. The content should be forked and the site should die.

>donate anyways
>still get spammed
So much regret, I only donated because of how much I use wikipedia and it was only $3.

Fuck them, I'm not giving them 1c more.

FEWER. IT'S FEWER NOT LESS.

FUCK.

IT'S LITERALLY ALL OVER AGAIN.

...

But guess who won the battle on literally?

Apparently the page on Adolf Hitler is the second most edited one on the entire site.

>The content should be forked
>passive voice
>always somebody gotta do things

Lel lets see YOU fork wikipedia. You wouldn't pay for a single month of hosting.

Waiting on IPFS

But the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast throttles uploading to 5kb a second.

It's stupid. Sometimes you can edit a page all day every day, never source anything, and it's there 5 years later completely untouched. But other pages get insta-reverted always.

>IPFS wiki

my sides nobody will give a fuck

>gamergate

cry more Sup Forumsirgin

I made an anonymous edit in January 2016, and it's still there:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_triangle_(mathematics)&action=history

---------------

On the other hand, it's been about 10 years since I first reported that the Webster dictionary's definition of "prime number" is bullshit (I gave them about 12 URLs from authoritative sources that directly contradicted their erroneous claim that negative integers are considered to be "prime"), and I got a nice e-mail response from them, but they haven't fixed it yet:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prime number

Donglegate then.

Not Wikipedia, but I had gotten b& from the NASA Spaceflight Forums for apparently posting factually incorrect stuff. Ok, I just reset my router and made a new account, tried to fact check stuff better. In other words, learn from my mistakes if they're that anal.

Nope, they re-banned me for ban evasion even though I had a completely different user name and did nothing to give away that I was the original guy they banned.

What. The. Fuck. Was. That.

English wikipedia is pretty shitty. If there are two nations involved in an article the whole discussion page is just a huge shitfest filled with nationalists from both sides who fight about edits.

How accurate is Wikipedia?

Don't edit pages on the Balkan Wars in the 90s. Ever.

In fact, don't edit pages about the Israel-Palestine conflict either.

As accurate as it's references.

NSF is elitist as fuck. But you should probably have fact checked better.

A lot of people say that it isn't accurate at all, since anyone can edit or make changes.

all these faggot pol manchild triggered by fucking wikipedia, pathetic

I probably should have, but that was complete bull that I would get rebanned for ban evasion as I tried to be more careful the second time. Also I didn't go out and say I was the original banned guy, so how the fuck could they have known it was me? I was careful to not do things like reference previous posts of mine with the first account I made and whatnot.

>I've added info

Just checked my edits and not only are they still there, people have expanded them and included a lot more info.

Sounds like you guys just like editing pages about absolute bullshit like history and whatever random antifeminist movement you know of. It's no wonder you get into ridiculous edit wars.

Start being credit to society by adding actual scientific facts and you'll just stop having problems. Ain't nobody who can argue with a direct quotation from a scientific article.

A lot of people are retarded.

Yea I know

I freaking edited pages on early US history, like in the 1830s. I doubt that that's as controversial as editing the page on Hillary Clinton.

...

So you edited humanities bullshit. That totally doesn't attract humanities faggots.

Edit some shit about medicine.

yea but then i cant participate in culture war which is the real reason i want to edit wikipedia

lyl

Yeah so what? Even I can understand why trying to edit that page is obviously such a bad idea. Why the shit would you even try?

You people are complaining about your inability to be a faggot.

If I was the wikipedia admin I'd shadowban you.

Don't edit pages on religion either. Another huge no-no.

My professor once mentioned during a lecture how his edits were reverted and how he stopped bothering with that site then.

I didn't edit the page, I just posted it for lulz.

>conspiracies
Wikipedia jews still claim that Pizzagate is fake. They're full of shit.

Wikimedia Foundation is an SJW/feminist company that's pushing that toxic ideology.

Cookies

The most obscure articles are the most accurate.

Here's another good one.

>tfw Wikipedia is literally the only website i donate to regularly

Imagine a website where everyone does it for free.

Cookies?

Like for example the pages on Thor missiles I expanded, unless they get reverted by this guy Bilcat, whom I suspect of being a NSF poster because there's a dude there by the name of Catldr.

Feels like you're a faggot.

Professor of what? Did he source his edits?

Just because he's a professor doesn't mean he's an authority on Wikipedia. He's just some user. Nobody there can actually verify his authority and really the probability of his shit being wrong isn't zero at all. People in position of authority spout bullshit all the time. I regularly work around mistakes made by people like these.

>GamerGate.

Jesus fuck I just read that Wikipedia article.

It reads like a SJW manifesto that was reworked to give it the façade of an encyclopedia article.

It pretty much equates any criticism of people like Sarkeesian with "harassment". As if it's simply not possible for a person to disagree with Sarkeesian's viewpoints without being "threatening" or a "misogynist".

Most of my edits are still there. But I usually only add or update data to existing tables. I also noticed a lot of statistics on Wikipedia are misinterpreted.

>Here's another good one.
thye're also the only online/offline encyclopedia source that has arguments "for bestiality"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_for_bestiality

Controversial pages should just be forked under certain conditions and users locked out of a branch by vote.

Then you could see "Certain information about this topic gets people BUTTMAD. Would you like to see that info?"

>Thor missles
What is that?

I had an entertaining screenshot of a page where the statement "penis size varies a lot between species" had over 20 superscript references

I know a lot about space stuff, kiddo.

Please expand on that, never heard about it.

>muh levitican laws
It might surprise you to learn that bestiality just wasn't a big deal until the Semites came along. The Greeks thought you were a loser if you fucked a goat but it wasn't some crime against spooks.

>yfw sponsoring jimmy to go to the whores every day

>Jimbo Randroid the Objectivist literally has to beg for handouts to keep his website running
Kekadoodle doo

A rocket. Was originally built as a short range missile, later the basis for one of the core US launcher families including Delta II.

Sounds like that Free Republic jerk (I got banned from there for endorsing Ron Paul)

It's (((leftist))) propaganda.

I'd never even dream of editing an article on social sciences. Are you nuts?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_for_bestiality

I have the weirdest boner.

It's all these faggots like OP are complaining about, so yeah, they truly are retarded.

paying to get shit re written by SJW faggots. No thanks.

Since when in this thread did I say I edited articles on feminism?

Yeah show us all your constructive edits on respectable, scientific pages. I bet they were full of respectable references, too.

That site hasn't been relevant since the WTC was standing.

back to faggot.

>muh levitican laws
>It might surprise you to learn that bestiality just wasn't a big deal until the Semites came along. The Greeks thought you were a loser if you fucked a goat but it wasn't some crime against spooks.

Go fuck yourself virgin.

>my attempts to remove blatantly anti-gay POV from articles not only gets the attention of closely banded conservatards who watch said articles, but eventually results in my getting blocked from editing

>"SJWs"

Yeah, okay. Wikipedia is a clusterfuck of bias enforced by tightly knit groups of editors with a territorial mindset. It's not predominantly slanted in any one direction. I've had to deal with retards from all sides of the spectrum getting buttblasted over my edits.

have you come to realize that maybe you're the retard?